Rodos wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Tom Massey wrote:
>
> > Just like to make a recommendation that anybody who's interested in a
> > light weight text browser might like to check out Links (no that's not a
>
> How does it compare to w3m?
Seems to have pretty similar rendering ability, loads at roughly the
same speed, a similar feature set. I think the difference is that w3m
was originally a pager for local docs, whereas links was always a web
browser - so w3m is good for quickly reading local html, but links has a
better feel IMHO for actual browsing. Also:
$ls -s links w3m
396 links* 876 w3m*
You can see links is about half the size of w3m.(You can probably get
w3m smaller, but this is as compiled with similar functionality to links
- colour, mouse support etc).
Tom
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
